Ratna Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Lko. and 2 Others

Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 11.02.2026 as well as order dated 18.02.2026 whereby petitioner has been declared unsuccessful in the typing test for purposes of continuance on a Class III post and has been directed to be provided appointment on a Class IV post.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's husband late Shubham Mishra passed away on 15.06.2023 whereafter petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis on a Class -III post but was unable to attain the minimum prescribed speed of 25 words per minute in Hindi typing test owing to illness of her son. It is submitted that petitioner being a widow is entitled for being provided one more opportunity to clear the aforesaid test. He has also placed reliance on judgment rendered by coordinate Benches of this Court in Rita Yadav v. State of U.P. and others [WRIT - A No. - 3316 of 2023], as well as Smt. Abha Devi v. State of U.P. and another [Writ - A No. - 4595 of 2023 which have subsequently been followed in other cases.

¶13

Learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that petitioner was

¶14

WRIA No. 2710 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

provided appointment on compassionate basis on a Class - III post with condition that she would be able to clear the typing test. It is submitted that the first typing test pertaining to petitioner was held on 31.12.2024 with the second typing test being held on 20.01.2026 but petitioner was unable to attain the minimum prescribed typing speed of 25 words per minute.

¶17

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner has been granted compassionate appointment on a Class - III post in view of her qualifications on compassionate basis but despite opportunity having been provided to her twice, she has not been able to clear the aforesaid typing test. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was not assigned any typing work due to which she was was unable to attain the aforesaid speed as also the aspect of her minor son being unwell.

¶18

It is trite that the purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to provide succour from financial hardship of the family under distress due to untimely demise of the sole earning member and therefore leverage is required to be given to such dependents to the maximum possible extent.

¶19

The aforesaid aspects have already been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Abha Devi (supra) as well as other judgments of coordinate Benches of this Court which have been appended to the writ petition.

¶20

In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgments are squarely applicable in the present facts and circumstances and therefore it is directed that the opposite parties shall conduct a fresh typing test for petitioner within a period of three months from today and if petitioner qualifies the aforesaid typing test, she would be permitted to continue on a Class III post. However, if she fails despite this last opportunity, which is being granted by this Court in exercise of equity jurisdiction, petitioner shall continue on a Class-IV post in terms of the orders impugned.

¶21

WRIA No. 2710 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

The order impugned in the present writ petition shall be subject to final orders passed by authorities concerned.

¶24

With aforesai d direction(s), the writ petition stands finally disposed of .

¶25

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶26

March 12, 2026

¶27

kvg/-

¶28

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ratna Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratna Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Mohan Sahai and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Devendra Singh (PNO-002330189) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Pramod Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services, Lko. and Another

Pannelal (PNO-122380152) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Satya Prakash Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Technical Education Lko. and 3 Others